The Power of Talk

FROMHBR THE HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW OnPoint

ARTICLE

That mild-mannered The Power of Talk: manager who rarely speaks up in meetings Who Gets Heard and Why may have the best by Deborah Tannen solutions to your company’s worst problems—if only you’d listen.

New sections to guide you through the article: • The Idea in Brief • The Idea at Work • Exploring Further. . .

PRODUCT NUMBER 9977 THE IDEA IN BRIEF The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why

You can spot a competent colleague with a linguistic style, we deprive our companies of great idea a mile away. Or can you? the opportunity to benefit from those ideas. Most of us judge others’ competence—as well Linguistic style differences are especially notice- as their confidence and authority—by the way able between genders. In U.S. businesses, where they talk. Based on what we hear, we decide men’s speaking style dominates, women may be whether a boss’, peer’s, or subordinate’s ideas ignored, interrupted, and passed over for pro- merit our attention and support. motions—even if they’re highly competent. There’s only one problem with this process: How to make sure your talented employees We all speak different “languages.” We assign get heard, get credit, and get work done—no different meaning to linguistic behaviors such matter what “language” they speak? Hone your as questioning, apologizing, and being indirect. awareness of different linguistic styles. Then Result? We misjudge one another—ignoring develop flexible approaches to meetings, men- or outright rejecting someone’s ideas because toring, and performance evaluation. Finally, we’ve decided he lacks competence. adjust your style to those of individuals with whom you interact. But any company’s success hinges on its managers’ ability to recognize—and implement—good Responding flexibly to various styles of inter- ideas. When we undervalue and reject certain action is especially important in today’s ideas because we misunderstand their presenter’s culturally diverse and global business world.

THE IDEA AT WORK

This table shows examples of styles of talking (including the assumptions behind each style) and unintended consequences a company may suffer because of misinterpreted stylistic differences. Style of Talking Unintended Consequences of Style Sharing Credit Uses “we” rather than “I” to describe Speaker doesn’t get credit for accomplishments. accomplishments and may hesitate Why? Using “I” seems too self-promoting. to offer good ideas in the future. Acting Modest Downplays their certainty, rather than mini- Speaker appears to lack confidence mizing doubts, about future performance. and, therefore, competence; others Why? Confident behavior seems reject speaker’s good ideas. too boastful. Asking Questions Asks questions freely. Speaker appears ignorant to others; Why? Questions generate needed if organization discourages speaker knowledge. from asking questions, valuable knowledge remains buried. Apologizing Apologizes freely. Speaker appears to lack authority. Why? Apologies express concern for others. Giving Feedback Notes weaknesses only after first Person receiving feedback concludes citing strengths. that areas needing improvement aren’t Why? Buffering criticism saves face for important. the individual receiving feedback. Avoiding Verbal Avoids challenging others’ ideas, and Others conclude that speaker has Opposition hedges when stating own ideas. weak ideas. Why? Verbal opposition signals destructive fighting. Managing Up Avoids talking up achievements Managers conclude that speaker hasn’t with higher-ups. achieved much and doesn’t deserve Why? Emphasizing achievements to recognition or promotion. higher-ups constitutes boasting. Being Indirect Speaks indirectly rather than bluntly Subordinates conclude that manager when telling subordinates what to do. lacks assertiveness and clear thinking, Why? Blatantly directing others is too bossy. and judge manager’s directives as unimportant.

by Deborah Tannen

The head of a large division of a multinational reasonable approach. But my field of research, socio- corporation was running a meeting devoted to per- linguistics, suggests otherwise. The CEO obviously formance assessment. Each senior manager stood thinks he knows what a confident person sounds up, reviewed the individuals in his group, and eval- like. But his judgment, which may be dead right for uated them for promotion. Although there were some people, may be dead wrong for others. women in every group, not one of them made the Communication isn’t as simple as saying what cut. One after another, each manager declared, in you mean. How you say what you mean is crucial, effect, that every woman in his group didn’t have and differs from one person to the next, because us- the self-confidence needed to be promoted. The di- ing language is learned social behavior: How we vision head began to doubt his ears. How could it be talk and listen are deeply influenced by cultural ex- that all the talented women in the division suffered perience. Although we might think that our ways from a lack of self-confidence? of saying what we mean are natural, we can run In all likelihood, they didn’t. Consider the many into trouble if we interpret and evaluate others as women who have left large corporations to start if they necessarily felt the same way we’d feel if we their own businesses, obviously exhibiting enough spoke the way they did. confidence to succeed on their own. Judgments Since 1974, I have been researching the influence about confidence can be inferred only from the way of linguistic style on conversations and human re- people present themselves, and much of that pre- Deborah Tannen is University Professor and a professor sentation is in the form of talk. of linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington, The CEO of a major corporation told me that he D.C. She is the author of 15 books, including You Just often has to make decisions in five minutes about Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation matters on which others may have worked five (William Morrow, 1990), which introduced to the gen- months. He said he uses this rule: If the person eral public the idea of female and male styles of com- making the proposal seems confident, the CEO ap- munication. The material in this article is drawn from proves it. If not, he says no. This might seem like a Talking from 9 to 5 (Avon Books, 1995).

Who Gets Heard and Why

lationships. In the past four years, I have extended view. Linguistic style refers to a person’s character- that research to the workplace, where I have ob- istic speaking pattern. It includes such features as served how ways of speaking learned in childhood directness or indirectness, pacing and pausing, affect judgments of competence and confidence, as word choice, and the use of such elements as jokes, well as who gets heard, who gets credit, and what figures of speech, stories, questions, and apologies. gets done. In other words, linguistic style is a set of culturally The division head who was dumbfounded to hear learned signals by which we not only communicate that all the talented women in his organization what we mean but also interpret others’ meaning lacked confidence was probably right to be skepti- and evaluate one another as people. cal. The senior managers were judging the women Consider turn taking, one element of linguistic in their groups by their own linguistic norms, but style. Conversation is an enterprise in which peo- women – like people who have grown up in a differ- ple take turns: One person speaks, then the other ent culture – have often learned different styles of responds. However, this apparently simple ex- speaking than men, which can make them seem change requires a subtle negotiation of signals so less competent and self-assured than they are. that you know when the other person is finished and it’s your turn to begin. Cultural factors such as What Is Linguistic Style? country or region of origin and ethnic background influence how long a pause seems natural. When Everything that is said must be said in a certain Bob, who is from Detroit, has a conversation with way – in a certain tone of voice, at a certain rate his colleague Joe, from New York City, it’s hard for of speed, and with a certain degree of loudness. him to get a word in edgewise because he expects a Whereas often we consciously consider what to say slightly longer pause between turns than Joe does. before speaking, we rarely think about how to say A pause of that length never comes because, before it, unless the situation is obviously loaded – for ex- it has a chance to, Joe senses an uncomfortable si- ample, a job interview or a tricky performance re- lence, which he fills with more talk of his own.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 139 THE POWER OF TALK

Both men fail to realize that differences in conver- They use language to negotiate how close they are; sational style are getting in their way. Bob thinks for example, the girl you tell your secrets to be- that Joe is pushy and uninterested in what he has comes your best friend. Girls learn to downplay to say, and Joe thinks that Bob doesn’t have much to ways in which one is better than the others and to contribute. Similarly, when Sally relocated from emphasize ways in which they are all the same. Texas to Washington, D.C., she kept searching for From childhood, most girls learn that sounding too the right time to break in during staff meetings – sure of themselves will make them unpopular with and never found it. Although in Texas she was con- their peers – although nobody really takes such sidered outgoing and confident, in Washington she modesty literally. A group of girls will ostracize a was perceived as shy and retiring. Her boss even girl who calls attention to her own superiority and suggested she take an assertiveness training course. criticize her by saying, “She thinks she’s some- Thus slight differences in conversational style – in thing”; and a girl who tells others what to do is these cases, a few seconds of pause – can have a sur- called “bossy.” Thus girls learn to talk in ways that prising impact on who gets heard and on the judg- balance their own needs with those of others – to ments, including psychological ones, that are made save face for one another in the broadest sense of about people and their abilities. the term. Every utterance functions on two levels. We’re Boys tend to play very differently. They usually all familiar with the first one: Language communi- play in larger groups in which more boys can be in- cates ideas. The second level is mostly invisible to cluded, but not everyone is treated as an equal. Boys us, but it plays a powerful role in communication. with high status in their group are expected to em- As a form of social behavior, language also negoti- phasize rather than downplay their status, and usu- ates relationships. Through ways of speaking, we ally one or several boys will be seen as the leader or signal – and create – the relative status of speakers leaders. Boys generally don’t accuse one another of and their level of rapport. If you say, “Sit down!” being bossy, because the leader is expected to tell you are signaling that you have higher status than lower-status boys what to do. Boys learn to use lan- the person you are addressing, that you are so close guage to negotiate their status in the group by dis- to each other that you can drop all pleasantries, or playing their abilities and knowledge, and by chal- that you are angry. If you say, “I would be honored lenging others and resisting challenges. Giving if you would sit down,” you are signaling great orders is one way of getting and keeping the high- respect – or great sarcasm, depending on your tone status role. Another is taking center stage by telling of voice, the situation, and what you both know stories or jokes. about how close you really are. If you say, “You This is not to say that all boys and girls grow up must be so tired – why don’t you sit down,” you are this way or feel comfortable in these groups or are communicating either closeness and concern or equally successful at negotiating within these condescension. Each of these ways of saying “the norms. But, for the most part, these childhood play same thing” – telling someone to sit down – can groups are where boys and girls learn their conver- have a vastly different meaning. sational styles. In this sense, they grow up in differ- In every community known to linguists, the pat- ent worlds. The result is that women and men tend terns that constitute linguistic style are relatively to have different habitual ways of saying what they different for men and women. What’s “natural” for mean, and conversations between them can be like most men speaking a given language is, in some cross-cultural communication: You can’t assume cases, different from what’s “natural” for most that the other person means what you would mean women. That is because we learn ways of speaking if you said the same thing in the same way. as children growing up, especially from peers, and My research in companies across the United children tend to play with other children of the States shows that the lessons learned in childhood same sex. The research of sociologists, anthropolo- carry over into the workplace. Consider the follow- gists, and psychologists observing American chil- ing example: A focus group was organized at a ma- dren at play has shown that, although both girls and jor multinational company to evaluate a recently boys find ways of creating rapport and negotiating implemented flextime policy. The participants sat status, girls tend to learn conversational rituals in a circle and discussed the new system. The group that focus on the rapport dimension of relation- concluded that it was excellent, but they also ships whereas boys tend to learn rituals that focus agreed on ways to improve it. The meeting went on the status dimension. well and was deemed a success by all, according to Girls tend to play with a single best friend or in my own observations and everyone’s comments to small groups, and they spend a lot of time talking. me. But the next day, I was in for a surprise.

140 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 I had left the meeting with the impression that down position. These linguistic patterns are perva- Phil had been responsible for most of the sugges- sive; you can hear them in hundreds of exchanges tions adopted by the group. But as I typed up my in the workplace every day. And, as in the case of notes, I noticed that Cheryl had made almost Cheryl and Phil, they affect who gets heard and all those suggestions. I had thought that the who gets credit. key ideas came from Phil because he had Getting Credit. Even so small a linguistic strate- picked up Cheryl’s points and supported gy as the choice of pronoun can affect who gets them, speaking at greater length in doing so credit. In my research in the workplace, I heard than she had in raising them. men say “I” in situations where I heard women say It would be easy to regard Phil as having “we.” For example, one publishing company execu- stolen Cheryl’s ideas – and her thunder. But tive said, “I’m hiring a new manager. I’m going to that would be inaccurate. Phil never claimed put him in charge of my marketing division,” as if Cheryl’s ideas as his own. Cheryl herself told he owned the corporation. In stark contrast, I me later that she left the meeting confident recorded women saying “we” when referring to that she had contributed significantly, and that work they alone had done. One woman explained she appreciated Phil’s support. She volun- that it would sound too self-promoting to claim teered, with a laugh, “It was not one of those credit in an obvious way by saying, “I did this.” Yet times when a woman says something and she expected–sometimes vainly–that others would it’s ignored, then a man says it and it’s know it was her work and would give her the credit picked up.” In other words, Cheryl and she did not claim for herself. Phil worked well as a team, the group ful- Managers might leap to the conclusion that filled its charge, and the company got what women who do not take credit for what they’ve it needed. So what was the problem? done should be taught to do so. But that solution is Even the choice of pronoun can affect who gets credit.

I went back and asked all the participants problematic because we associate ways of speaking who they thought had been the most influen- with moral qualities: The way we speak is who we tial group member, the one most responsible are and who we want to be. for the ideas that had been adopted. The pat- Veronica, a senior researcher in a high-tech com- tern of answers was revealing. The two other pany, had an observant boss. He noticed that many women in the group named Cheryl. Two of the of the ideas coming out of the group were hers but three men named Phil. Of the men, only Phil that often someone else trumpeted them around named Cheryl. In other words, in this instance, the the office and got credit for them. He advised her to women evaluated the contribution of another “own” her ideas and make sure she got the credit. woman more accurately than the men did. But Veronica found she simply didn’t enjoy her Meetings like this take place daily in companies work if she had to approach it as what seemed to around the country. Unless managers are unusually her an unattractive and unappealing “grabbing good at listening closely to how people say what game.” It was her dislike of such behavior that had they mean, the talents of someone like Cheryl may led her to avoid it in the first place. well be undervalued and underutilized. Whatever the motivation, women are less likely than men to have learned to blow their own horn. One Up, One Down And they are more likely than men to believe that if they do so, they won’t be liked. Individual speakers vary in how sensitive they Many have argued that the growing trend of as- are to the social dynamics of language – in other signing work to teams may be especially congenial words, to the subtle nuances of what others say to to women, but it may also create complications for them. Men tend to be sensitive to the power dy- performance evaluation. When ideas are generated namics of interaction, speaking in ways that posi- and work is accomplished in the privacy of the tion themselves as one up and resisting being put in team, the outcome of the team’s effort may become a one-down position by others. Women tend to re- associated with the person most vocal about report- act more strongly to the rapport dynamic, speaking ing results. There are many women and men – but in ways that save face for others and buffering state- probably relatively more women – who are reluc- ments that could be seen as putting others in a one- tant to put themselves forward in this way and

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 141 THE POWER OF TALK who consequently risk not getting credit for their basis for judgments – or misjudgments – about com- contributions. petence. During her training, she received a nega- Confidence and Boasting. The CEO who based tive evaluation that she thought was unfair, so she his decisions on the confidence level of speakers asked her supervising physician for an explanation. was articulating a value that is widely shared in He said that she knew less than her peers. Amazed U.S. businesses: One way to judge confidence is by at his answer, she asked how he had reached that an individual’s behavior, especially verbal behavior. conclusion. He said, “You ask more questions.” Here again, many women are at a disadvantage. Along with cultural influences and individual Studies show that women are more likely to personality, gender seems to play a role in whether downplay their certainty and men are more likely and when people ask questions. For example, of all to minimize their doubts. Psychologist Laurie the observations I’ve made in lectures and books, Heatherington and her colleagues devised an inge- the one that sparks the most enthusiastic flash of nious experiment, which they reported in the jour- recognition is that men are less likely than women nal Sex Roles (Volume 29, 1993). They asked hun- to stop and ask for directions when they are lost. I dreds of incoming college students to predict what explain that men often resist asking for directions grades they would get in their first year. Some sub- because they are aware that it puts them in a one- jects were asked to make their predictions privately down position and because they value the indepen- by writing them down and placing them in an enve- dence that comes with finding their way by them- lope; others were asked to make their predictions selves. Asking for directions while driving is only publicly, in the presence of a researcher. The results one instance – along with many others that re- showed that more women than men predicted low- searchers have examined – in which men seem less er grades for themselves if they made their predic- likely than women to ask questions. I believe this is tions publicly. If they made their predictions pri- because they are more attuned than women to the vately, the predictions were the same as those of potential face-losing aspect of asking questions. the men – and the same as their actual grades. This And men who believe that asking questions might study provides evidence that what comes across as reflect negatively on them may, in turn, be likely to lack of confidence–predicting lower grades for one- form a negative opinion of others who ask ques- self – may reflect not one’s actual level of confi- tions in situations where they would not. dence but the desire not to seem boastful. These habits with regard to appearing humble or Conversational Rituals confident result from the socialization of boys and girls by their peers in childhood play. As adults, Conversation is fundamentally ritual in the both women and men find these behaviors rein- sense that we speak in ways our culture has con- forced by the positive responses they get from ventionalized and expect certain types of responses. friends and relatives who share the same norms. Take greetings, for example. I have heard visitors to But the norms of behavior in the U.S. business the United States complain that Americans are world are based on the style of interaction that is more common among men–at least, among Ameri- can men. Women are likely to downplay Asking Questions. Although asking the right questions is one of the hallmarks of a good man- hypocritical because they ask how you are but ager, how and when questions are asked can send aren’t interested in the answer. To Americans, How unintended signals about competence and power. are you? is obviously a ritualized way to start a con- In a group, if only one person asks questions, he versation rather than a literal request for informa- or she risks being seen as the only ignorant one. tion. In other parts of the world, including the Furthermore, we judge others not only by how Philippines, people ask each other, “Where are you they speak but also by how they are spoken to. The going?” when they meet. The question seems in- person who asks questions may end up being lec- trusive to Americans, who do not realize that it, tured to and looking like a novice under a school- too, is a ritual query to which the only expected re- master’s tutelage. The way boys are socialized ply is a vague “Over there.” makes them more likely to be aware of the underly- It’s easy and entertaining to observe different rit- ing power dynamic by which a question asker can uals in foreign countries. But we don’t expect differ- be seen in a one-down position. ences, and are far less likely to recognize the ritual- One practicing physician learned the hard way ized nature of our conversations, when we are with that any exchange of information can become the our compatriots at work. Our differing rituals can

142 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 be even more problematic when we think we’re all may be an equally effective or superior strategy in speaking the same language. some settings. Apologies. Consider the simple phrase I’m sorry. Feedback. Styles of giving feedback contain a rit- Catherine: How did that big presentation go? ual element that often is the cause for misunder- Bob: Oh, not very well. I got a lot of flak from the VP for standing. Consider the following exchange: A man- finance, and I didn’t have the numbers at my fingertips. ager had to tell her marketing director to rewrite a Catherine: Oh, I’m sorry. I know how hard you worked report. She began this potentially awkward task on that. by citing the report’s strengths and then In this case, I’m sorry probably means “I’m sorry moved to the main point: the weaknesses that happened,” not “I apologize,” unless it was that needed to be remedied. The marketing Catherine’s responsibility to supply Bob with the director seemed to understand and accept numbers for the presentation. Women tend to say his supervisor’s comments, but his revision I’m sorry more frequently than men, and often they contained only minor changes and failed to intend it in this way – as a ritualized means of ex- address the major weaknesses. When the pressing concern. It’s one of many learned elements manager told him of her dissatisfaction, he of conversational style that girls often use to estab- accused her of misleading him: “You told lish rapport. Ritual apologies – like other conversa- me it was fine.” tional rituals – work well when both parties share The impasse resulted from different the same assumptions about their use. But people linguistic styles. To the manager, it who utter frequent ritual apologies may end up ap- was natural to buffer the criticism by pearing weaker, less confident, and literally more beginning with praise. Telling her blameworthy than people who don’t. subordinate that his report is inade- Apologies tend to be regarded differently by men, quate and has to be rewritten puts who are more likely to focus on the status implica- him in a one-down position. Prais- tions of exchanges. Many men avoid apologies being him for the parts that are good is cause they see them as putting the speaker in a one- a ritualized way of saving face for down position. I observed with some amazement him. But the marketing director did an encounter among several lawyers engaged in a not share his supervisor’s assump- negotiation over a speakerphone. At one point, the tion about how feedback should lawyer in whose office I was sitting accidentally el- be given. Instead, he assumed bowed the telephone and cut off the call. When his that what she mentioned first secretary got the parties back on again, I expected was the main point and that him to say what I would have said: “Sorry about what she brought up later was that. I knocked the phone with my elbow.” Instead, an afterthought. he said, “Hey, what happened? One minute you Those who expect feedback to were there; the next minute you were gone!” This come in the way the manager present- their certainty; men are likely to minimize their doubts.

lawyer seemed to have an automatic impulse not to ed it would appreciate her tact and admit fault if he didn’t have to. For me, it was one of would regard a more blunt approach as those pivotal moments when you realize that the unnecessarily callous. But those who share world you live in is not the one everyone lives in the marketing director’s assumptions and that the way you assume is the way to talk is would regard the blunt approach as hon- really only one of many. est and no-nonsense, and the manag- Those who caution managers not to undermine er’s as obfuscating. Because each one’s their authority by apologizing are approaching inter- assumptions seemed self-evident, each action from the perspective of the power dynamic. blamed the other: The manager thought the In many cases, this strategy is effective. On the marketing director was not listening, and he other hand, when I asked people what frustrated thought she had not communicated clearly or had them in their jobs, one frequently voiced complaint changed her mind. This is significant because it was working with or for someone who refuses to illustrates that incidents labeled vaguely as “poor apologize or admit fault. In other words, accepting communication” may be the result of differing lin- responsibility for errors and admitting mistakes guistic styles.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 143 THE POWER OF TALK

Compliments. Exchanging compliments is a The exchange between Susan and Bill also sug- common ritual, especially among women. A mis- gests how women’s and men’s characteristic styles match in expectations about this ritual left Susan, may put women at a disadvantage in the workplace. a manager in the human resources field, in a one- If one person is trying to minimize status differ- down position. She and her colleague Bill had both ences, maintain an appearance that everyone is given presentations at a national conference. On equal, and save face for the other, while another the airplane home, Susan told Bill, “That was a person is trying to maintain the one-up position great talk!” “Thank you,” he said. Then she asked, and avoid being positioned as one down, the person “What did you think of mine?” He responded with seeking the one-up position is likely to get it. At the a lengthy and detailed critique, as she listened un- same time, the person who has not been expending comfortably. An unpleasant feeling of having been any effort to avoid the one-down position is likely put down came over her. Somehow she had been to end up in it. Because women are more likely to positioned as the novice in need of his expert ad- take (or accept) the role of advice seeker, men are vice. Even worse, she had only herself to blame, more inclined to interpret a ritual question from a since she had, after all, asked Bill what he thought woman as a request for advice. of her talk. Ritual Opposition. Apologizing, mitigating criti- But had Susan asked for the response she re- cism with praise, and exchanging compliments are ceived? When she asked Bill what he thought about rituals common among women that men often take her talk, she expected to hear not a critique but a literally. A ritual common among men that women compliment. In fact, her question had been an at- often take literally is ritual opposition. tempt to repair a ritual gone awry. Susan’s initial A woman in communications told me she compliment to Bill was the kind of automatic watched with distaste and distress as her office recognition she felt was more or less required af- mate argued heatedly with another colleague about ter a colleague gives a presentation, and she ex- whose division should suffer budget cuts. She was pected Bill to respond with a matching compli- even more surprised, however, that a short time ment. She was just talking automatically, but later they were as friendly as ever. “How can you he either sincerely misunderstood the ritual pretend that fight never happened?” she asked. or simply took the opportunity to bask in “Who’s pretending it never happened?” he responded, the one-up position of critic. Whatever his as puzzled by her question as she had been by his motivation, it was Susan’s attempt to spark behavior. “It happened,” he said, “and it’s over.” an exchange of compliments that gave him What she took as literal fighting to him was a rou- the opening. tine part of daily negotiation: a ritual fight. Although this exchange could have oc- Many Americans expect the discussion of ideas curred between two men, it does not seem to be a ritual fight – that is, an exploration through coincidental that it happened between a verbal opposition. They present their own ideas in man and a woman. Linguist Janet Holmes the most certain and absolute form they can, and discovered that women pay more compli- wait to see if they are challenged. Being forced to ments than men (Anthropological Lin- defend an idea provides an opportunity to test it. In guistics, Volume 28, 1986). And, as I the same spirit, they may play devil’s advocate in have observed, fewer men are likely challenging their colleagues’ ideas – trying to poke to ask, “What did you think of my holes and find weaknesses – as a way of helping talk?” precisely because the question them explore and test their ideas. might invite an unwanted critique. This style can work well if everyone shares it, In the social structure of the peer groups but those unaccustomed to it are likely to miss its in which they grow up, boys are indeed ritual nature. They may give up an idea that is Men are more attuned than women to the potential face-losing

looking for opportunities to put others down challenged, taking the objections as an indication and take the one-up position for themselves. In that the idea was a poor one. Worse, they may take contrast, one of the rituals girls learn is taking the opposition as a personal attack and may find it the one-down position but assuming that the impossible to do their best in a contentious envi- other person will recognize the ritual nature of ronment. People unaccustomed to this style may the self-denigration and pull them back up. hedge when stating their ideas in order to fend off

144 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 potential attacks. Ironically, this posture makes should be necessary for success was to do a great their arguments appear weak and is more likely job, that superior performance should be recog- to invite attack from pugnacious colleagues than to nized and rewarded. In contrast, men often told me fend it off. that if women weren’t promoted, it was because Ritual opposition can even play a role in who gets they simply weren’t up to snuff. Looking around, hired. Some consulting firms that recruit graduates however, I saw evidence that men more often than from the top business schools use a confrontational women behaved in ways likely to get them recognized by those with the power to de- termine their advancement. Those who are uncomfortable In all the companies I visited, I observed what happened at lunchtime. with verbal opposition – women I saw young men who regularly ate lunch with their boss, and senior or men – run the risk of seeming men who ate with the big boss. I noticed far fewer women who sought insecure about their ideas. out the highest-level person they could eat with. But one is more likely to get recognition for work done if interviewing technique. They challenge the candi- one talks about it to those higher up, and it is easier date to “crack a case” in real time. A partner at one to do so if the lines of communication are already firm told me, “Women tend to do less well in this open. Furthermore, given the opportunity for a con- kind of interaction, and it certainly affects who gets versation with superiors, men and women are like- hired. But, in fact, many women who don’t ‘test ly to have different ways of talking about their ac- well’ turn out to be good consultants. They’re often complishments because of the different ways in smarter than some of the men who looked like ana- which they were socialized as children. Boys are re- lytic powerhouses under pressure.” warded by their peers if they talk up their achieve- The level of verbal opposition varies from one ments, whereas girls are rewarded if they play company’s culture to the next, but I saw instances theirs down. Linguistic styles common among men of it in all the organizations I studied. Anyone who may tend to give them some advantages when it is uncomfortable with this linguistic style – and comes to managing up. that includes some men as well as many women – All speakers are aware of the status of the person risks appearing insecure about his or her ideas. they are talking to and adjust accordingly. Everyone speaks differently when talking to a boss than when Negotiating Authority talking to a subordinate. But, surprisingly, the ways in which they adjust their talk may be different and In organizations, formal authority comes from thus may project different images of themselves. the position one holds. But actual authority has to Communications researchers Karen Tracy and be negotiated day to day. The effectiveness of indi- Eric Eisenberg studied how relative status affects vidual managers depends in part on their skill in ne- the way people give criticism. They devised a busi- gotiating authority and on whether others reinforce ness letter that contained some errors and asked 13 or undercut their efforts. The way linguistic style male and 11 female college students to role-play de- reflects status plays a subtle role in placing individ- livering criticism under two scenarios. In the first, uals within a hierarchy. the speaker was a boss talking to a subordinate; in Managing Up and Down. In all the companies I the second, the speaker was a subordinate talking researched, I heard from women who knew they to his or her boss. The researchers measured how hard the speakers tried to avoid hurting the feelings of the person they were criticizing. aspect of asking questions. One might expect people to be more careful about how they deliver criticism when they are in a were doing a superior job and knew that their co- subordinate position. Tracy and Eisenberg found workers (and sometimes their immediate bosses) that hypothesis to be true for the men in their study knew it as well, but believed that the higher-ups did but not for the women. As they reported in Re- not. They frequently told me that something out- search on Language and Social Interaction (Vol- side themselves was holding them back and found ume 24, 1990/1991), the women showed more con- it frustrating because they thought that all that cern about the other person’s feelings when they

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 145 were playing the role of superior. In other words, ness to push around boys who assume the one-down the women were more careful to save face for the position. other person when they were managing down than At first glance, it would seem that only the pow- when they were managing up. This pattern recalls erful can get away with bald commands such as, the way girls are socialized: Those who are in some “Have that report on my desk by noon.” But power way superior are expected to downplay rather than in an organization also can lead to requests so indi- flaunt their superiority. rect that they don’t sound like requests at all. A In my own recordings of workplace communica- boss who says, “Do we have the sales data by prod- tion, I observed women talking in similar ways. For uct line for each region?” would be surprised and example, when a manager had to correct a mistake frustrated if a subordinate responded, “We probably do” rather than “I’ll get it for you.” Examples such as these notwith- People in powerful positions are standing, many researchers have claimed that those in subordinate likely to reward linguistic styles positions are more likely to speak indirectly, and that is surely accurate similar to their own. in some situations. For example, linguist Charlotte Linde, in a study published in Language in Society made by her secretary, she did so by acknowledging (Volume 17, 1988), examined the black-box conver- that there were mitigating circumstances. She said, sations that took place between pilots and copilots laughing, “You know, it’s hard to do things around before airplane crashes. In one particularly tragic here, isn’t it, with all these people coming in!” The instance, an Air Florida plane crashed into the manager was saving face for her subordinate, just Potomac River immediately after attempting take- like the female students role-playing in the Tracy off from National Airport in Washington, D.C., and Eisenberg study. killing all but 5 of the 74 people on board. The pilot, Is this an effective way to communicate? One it turned out, had little experience flying in icy must ask, effective for what? The manager in ques- weather. The copilot had a bit more, and it became tion established a positive environment in her heartbreakingly clear on analysis that he had tried group, and the work was done effectively. On the to warn the pilot but had done so indirectly. Alerted other hand, numerous women in many different by Linde’s observation, I examined the transcript of fields told me that their bosses say they don’t pro- the conversations and found evidence of her hy- ject the proper authority. pothesis. The copilot repeatedly called attention to Indirectness. Another linguistic signal that the bad weather and to ice buildup on other planes: varies with power and status is indirectness – the Copilot: Look how the ice is just hanging on his, ah, back, tendency to say what we mean without spelling it back there, see that? See all those icicles on the back out in so many words. Despite the widespread be- there and everything? lief in the United States that it’s always best to say Pilot: Yeah. exactly what we mean, indirectness is a fundamen- [The copilot also expressed concern about the long tal and pervasive element in human communica- waiting time since deicing.] tion. It also is one of the elements that vary most Copilot: Boy, this is a, this is a losing battle here on trying from one culture to another, and it can cause enor- to deice those things; it [gives] you a false feeling of secu- rity, that’s all that does. mous misunderstanding when speakers have differ- [Just before they took off, the copilot expressed another ent habits and expectations about how it is used. concern – about abnormal instrument readings – but It’s often said that American women are more indi- again he didn’t press the matter when it wasn’t picked up rect than American men, but in fact everyone tends by the pilot.] to be indirect in some situations and in differ- Copilot: That don’t seem right, does it? [3-second pause]. ent ways. Allowing for cultural, ethnic, regional, Ah, that’s not right. Well– and individual differences, women are especially Pilot: Yes it is, there’s 80. likely to be indirect when it comes to telling oth- Copilot: Naw, I don’t think that’s right. [7-second pause] ers what to do, which is not surprising, considering Ah, maybe it is. girls’ readiness to brand other girls as bossy. On Shortly thereafter, the plane took off, with tragic the other hand, men are especially likely to be in- results. In other instances as well as this one, Linde direct when it comes to admitting fault or weakness, observed that copilots, who are second in com- which also is not surprising, considering boys’ readi- mand, are more likely to express themselves indi-

146 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 THE POWER OF TALK rectly or otherwise mitigate, or soften, their com- had seemed to be clear and flawless at the time, but munication when they are suggesting courses of ac- it turned out that they had interpreted this simple tion to the pilot. In an effort to avert similar disas- exchange in very different ways. She thought he ters, some airlines now offer training for copilots to meant, “Fine, I’ll help the bookkeeper out.” He express themselves in more assertive ways. thought he meant, “Fine, I’ll think about how I This solution seems self-evidently appropriate to would feel about helping the bookkeeper out.” He most Americans. But when I assigned Linde’s arti- did think about it and came to the conclusion that cle in a graduate seminar I taught, a Japanese stu- he had more important things to do and couldn’t dent pointed out that it would be just as effective to spare the time. train pilots to pick up on hints. This approach re- To the owner, “How would you feel about help- flects assumptions about communication that typ- ing the bookkeeper out?” was an obviously appro- ify Japanese culture, which places great value on the priate way to give the order “Help the bookkeeper ability of people to understand one another without out with the billing.” Those who expect orders to putting everything into words. Either directness or be given as bald imperatives may find such locu- indirectness can be a successful means of commu- tions annoying or even misleading. But those for nication as long as the linguistic style is understood whom this style is natural do not think they are be- by the participants. ing indirect. They believe they are being clear in a In the world of work, however, there is more at polite or respectful way. stake than whether the communication is under- What is atypical in this example is that the per- stood. People in powerful positions are likely to re- son with the more indirect style was the boss, so ward styles similar to their own, because we all the store manager was motivated to adapt to her tend to take as self-evident the logic of our own style. She still gives orders the same way, but the styles. Accordingly, there is evidence that in the store manager now understands how she means U.S. workplace, where instructions from a superior what she says. It’s more common in U.S. business are expected to be voiced in a relatively direct man- contexts for the highest-ranking people to take a ner, those who tend to be indirect when telling sub- more direct style, with the result that many women ordinates what to do may be perceived as lacking in in authority risk being judged by their superiors as confidence. lacking the appropriate demeanor – and, conse- Consider the case of the manager at a national quently, lacking confidence. magazine who was responsible for giving assign- ments to reporters. She tended to phrase her assign- What to Do? ments as questions. For example, she asked, “How would you like to do the X project with Y?” or said, I am often asked, What is the best way to give “I was thinking of putting you on the X project. Is criticism? or What is the best way to give orders? – that okay?” This worked extremely well with her in other words, What is the best way to communi- staff; they liked working for her, and the work got cate? The answer is that there is no one best way. done in an efficient and orderly manner. But when The results of a given way of speaking will vary de- she had her midyear evaluation with her own boss, pending on the situation, the culture of the compa- he criticized her for not assuming the proper de- ny, the relative rank of speakers, their linguistic meanor with her staff. styles, and how those styles interact with one an- In any work environment, the higher-ranking other. Because of all those influences, any way of person has the power to enforce his or her view of speaking could be perfect for communicating with appropriate demeanor, created in part by linguistic one person in one situation and disastrous with style. In most U.S. contexts, that view is likely to as- someone else in another. The critical skill for man- sume that the person in authority has the right to agers is to become aware of the workings and power be relatively direct rather than to mitigate orders. of linguistic style, to make sure that people with There also are cases, however, in which the higher- something valuable to contribute get heard. ranking person assumes a more indirect style. The It may seem, for example, that running a meeting owner of a retail operation told her subordinate, a in an unstructured way gives equal opportunity to store manager, to do something. He said he would all. But awareness of the differences in conversa- do it, but a week later he still hadn’t. They were tional style makes it easy to see the potential for able to trace the difficulty to the following conver- unequal access. Those who are comfortable speak- sation: She had said, “The bookkeeper needs help ing up in groups, who need little or no silence be- with the billing. How would you feel about helping fore raising their hands, or who speak out easily her out?” He had said, “Fine.” This conversation without waiting to be recognized are far more likely

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 147 THE POWER OF TALK to get heard at meetings. Those who refrain from A manager aware of those dynamics might devise talking until it’s clear that the previous speaker is any number of ways of ensuring that everyone’s finished, who wait to be recognized, and who are in- ideas are heard and credited. Although no single so- clined to link their comments to those of others lution will fit all contexts, managers who under- will do fine at a meeting where everyone else is fol- stand the dynamics of linguistic style can develop lowing the same rules but will have a hard time get- more adaptive and flexible approaches to running ting heard in a meeting with people whose styles or participating in meetings, mentoring or advanc- are more like the first pattern. Given the socializa- ing the careers of others, evaluating performance, tion typical of boys and girls, men are more likely to and so on. Talk is the lifeblood of managerial work, have learned the first style and women the second, and understanding that different people have differ- making meetings more congenial for men than for ent ways of saying what they mean will make it women. It’s common to observe women who par- possible to take advantage of the talents of people ticipate actively in one-on-one discussions or in all- with a broad range of linguistic styles. As the work- female groups but who are seldom heard in meet- place becomes more culturally diverse and business ings with a large proportion of men. On the other becomes more global, managers will need to be- hand, there are women who share the style more come even better at reading interactions and more common among men, and they run a different risk– flexible in adjusting their own styles to the people of being seen as too aggressive. with whom they interact. Product no. 9977 To place an order, call 1-800-988-0886. To further explore the topic of this article, go to http://explore.hbr.org.

148 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW September-October 1995 EXPLORING FURTHER... The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why

ARTICLES “Breakthrough Bargaining” by Deborah M. “Barriers and Gateways to Communication” Kolb and Judith Williams (Harvard Business by Carl R. Rogers and F. J. Roethlisberger Review,February 2001, Product no. 6080) (Harvard Business Review,November– This article presents another compelling December 1991, Product no. 91610) analysis of the “power of talk,” but narrows In this classic article (first published in 1952 the focus to negotiations. Tannen highlighted and reprinted with a retrospective commen- the more noticeable difference in linguistic tary by John J. Gabarro), the authors agree styles between men and women. Similarly, that the primary obstacle to productive com- Kolb and Williams note that the shadow munication is our tendency to make assump- negotiation—the tacit assumptions bargain- tions about others without listening to what ers have about one another—looms largest they have to say. By mastering the art of when bargainers hold unequal power, e.g., empathic understanding, we can vastly subordinate/boss, new employee/veteran, improve the quality of our communication— male/female, older/younger. and benefit from each other’s good ideas. Empathic understanding means seeing some- The shadow negotiation determines how one else’s idea from his point of view, not ours; bargainers deal with each other, whose that is, sensing how that other person thinks, opinions get heard, and whose interests and adopting his or her frame of reference. hold sway. It can also stall negotiations. To turn blocked negotiations into constructive The authors describe a powerful technique dialogue, the authors provide three sets of for strengthening your empathic understand- strategic moves: 1) Power moves coax reluc- ing: Before responding to another person’s tant bargainers to the table by showing how comment during a conversation or dispute, they’ll be better off by participating. Moves restate his ideas and feelings accurately and include offering explicit incentives, putting a to his satisfaction. This technique is more price on inaction, and enlisting support from difficult than it seems on the surface, because key people. 2) Process moves help you shape empathic understanding involves risk: If we negotiation agendas and interpersonal really understand someone else’s frame of dynamics before you bargain. They include reference, we may be changed ourselves. seeding your ideas, reframing the negotiation process, and building consensus among key players. 3) Appreciative moves foster trust and candor by highlighting common interests. These include helping others save face, keeping the dialogue going, and soliciting new perspectives.

Visit us on the Web at:

U.S. and Canada: 800-988-0886 617-783-7500 • Fax: 617-783-7555